We have been fighting against the legalization of assisted suicide for years, and we have been constantly warning about where that would lead — to direct and involuntary euthanasia of vulnerable people. We have been consistently accused of lying, scare-mongering, and exaggerating. But in the past few weeks, we have seen increasingly dangerous signs of the times that have confirmed all of our fears and warnings about the dangers of opening the door to euthanasia.

The first sign was the terrible tragedy of the Charlie Gard case. Charlie was an infant in the United Kingdom who had a very grave genetic disorder that was growing progressively worse. He was hospitalized and he was breathing with the assistance of a ventilator. His parents wished to take him out of the hospital and bring him to other hospitals for an experimental treatment that other medical teams thought had a chance of reversing the course of Charlie’s condition. Astonishingly, the doctors and the hospital resisted that request, and the case went to court. Equally astonishingly, the UK courts ruled that Charlie’s parents could not transfer him to another hospital, nor were they even allowed to bring him home for his last days. He died in the hospital after doctors removed the ventilator, against the parents’ wishes.

Prof. Charles Camosy, a theologian who specializes in medical ethics, has written a penetrating analysis of the case, and some of what he said is worth quoting directly (although you should read the whole thing). Commenting about the court’s decision, he noted that:

Implicit in this judgment is the view that the harm that would have been done to Charlie by his parents was so obvious and of such magnitude that the decision had to be taken out of their hands… Those who held power over Charlie decided that his life was not worth living. They reached this judgment on the basis of his expected mental disability. They denied him treatment, and ordered his ventilator removed, not because of the burden of the treatment, but because of the burden of his life. In a cruel act proposed by doctors, approved by courts, cheered by the press, and blessed by certain high clerics, Charlie Gard was euthanized. It was euthanasia by omission, but it was euthanasia all the same.”

This is chilling indeed, and it is a frightening sign of where medicine is heading. Similar judgments about “quality of life” and “medical futility” are being made in secret all the time by doctors against the desires of patients and even without their knowledge. The result is an unknown number of cases of passive euthanasia – death caused by omitting treatments that would extend life. Legalizing assisted suicide would bring these decisions out of the shadows, and would inevitably increase the number of cases like Charlie Gard’s.

This is not fear-mongering, it’s current events. All we have to do is look at studies of the Netherlands that have recently come out. One study came out in May from the Dutch Regional Euthanasia Commission, the government agency responsible for oversight. The other study was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine just last week.

The NEJM study found some alarming things. Doctors report that 4.5% of deaths in that nation are due to euthanasia. That is a staggering number. If it were in the United States, it would represent almost 120,000 deaths per year and would be the sixth leading cause of death – more than Alzheimer’s, diabetes, suicide, murder or drug overdoses.

Even more alarming is what was found in the official Dutch study. They reported that euthanasia cases aren’t limited to the superficially sympathetic cases of people with terminal diseases. Instead, there was an increasing number of psychiatric and dementia patients who were being euthanized– 141 in 2016 compared to only 12 in 2009 – and that 431 people had been euthanized without their explicit consent. This is so shocking that one of the leading euthanasia supporters accused the Euthanasia Commission of concealing that “incapacitated people were surreptitiously killed,” and even went so far as to say that “executions” were taking place.

None of this should really be a surprise. As Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht commented, “When one breaks the principle that human life is an essential value, one steps on the slippery slope. Dutch experiences teach that we will be confronted time and again with the question whether the ending of life shouldn’t also be possible with less serious forms of suffering.” The principal author of the NEJM study also saw what was going on: “When assisted dying is becoming the more normal option at the end of life, there is a risk people will feel more inclined to ask for it.”

We cannot afford to ignore what is happening around the world, and we must stop it from happening here. We are talking about the most vulnerable lives – handicapped children, old people with chronic problems, mentally ill people. Health care professionals are already being confronted with the question of whether their lives are worth living. If we allow assisted suicide, it is certain that doctors will become accustomed to doing it and will start recommending it, the secret euthanasia that is already happening will become more mainstream and open, and more people will start asking for it.

Prof. Camosy makes a crucial point that we have to focus our attention on: “Nothing moral follows from medical facts. Judgments about whether or not treatment is worth pursuing will have to be made. And physicians, even with perfect medical knowledge, are not the best persons to make them.” I would add, neither are the government or insurance companies.

These decisions must be made by families and patients, and we in the Church need to do much more to make sure that they are informed by the truths of Church teaching about the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of condition or capability.

The recent Convocation of Catholic Leaders on The Joy of the Gospel in America was a potential turning point for our Church. The challenge presented was to move outside the methods and modes of typical Church activities in order to become vibrant missionary disciples who are energized to bring the Gospel to all, especially those on the peripheries of society.

One of the great aspects of the Convocation, and one of the under-used tools of evangelization, is what Pope Francis calls in The Gospel of Life the “Via Pulchritudinis”, the “way of beauty”.

This insight is not unique to Pope Francis, of course. Pope Benedict (who is a musician) also spoke often of the power of beauty in spreading the Gospel, and Pope Saint John Paul (who was an actor, playwright and poet) was also deeply immersed in the aesthetic perspective. The great evangelistic work of Bishop Robert Barron also relies heavily on the historic beauty of the art and music created by Christian civilization.

At the Convocation the power of the way of beauty was made manifest. Thanks to the Magnificat Foundation, there was exquisite religious artwork projected on the screens during all the liturgical services — stained glass windows from Europe, and artwork from many nations. The Marian art was particularly powerful to me.

The liturgical music was truly spectacular. Coordinated by my friend Chris Mueller and Rev. Łukasz Miśko, O.P., the music provided a wonderful blend of traditional and modern compositions. Simple but lovely modes of chant were used during the Liturgy of the Hours, so that even novices like me could fully participate. There were many unfamiliar hymns at Mass, but they were easily learned and sung. The Schola, which sang under Chris’ direction, was positively angelic and they helped us to offer beautiful praise to God. I know virtually nothing about music, so if you’re interested in the details, check this story by Chris Mueller.

I have to add a particular plug for Chris. He is an extraordinarily talented musician, and he has taken for his mission the renewal of liturgical music through recapturing traditional forms and making them accessible to modern ears and voices. He specializes in polyphony, and his wife and children sing as an ensemble. Chris was invited to spearhead music at World Youth Day in Poland last year, and as soon as I heard that he was involved in the music at the Convocation I know we were in for a treasure. Anyone who is interested in the role of music in the New Evangelization should familiarize themselves with Chris and his work.

Humanity is inherently attuned to aesthetics. Music and videos are obviously at the center of modern entertainment, and they form a critical part of the vocabulary of emotions and experience, especially for young people. The Convocation demonstrated that in the evening of praise and devotion led Matt Maher and Audrey Assad, two of the best contemporary Catholic musicians. Everyone present — not just the young guys — felt the power of the Spirit in their music.

I have never been accused of having a heightened aesthetic sensibility. But the noble simplicity of the Roman Rite and the majesty of Eastern Christian icons appeal to me on a deep level. So I can understand very well that the way to God is through the three great universal values — the good, the true and the beautiful.

The Convocation captured this idea and we witnessed the power of the beautiful in our mission of proclaiming the truth and goodness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the current state of political discourse in the United States, it seems as if we have moved beyond the point where we can actually have rational reasonable arguments with each other. All too many people have descended back to the schoolyard, and are simply calling people names.

The cause of my reflection on this lamentable trend is the appearance of several news stories about the Attorney General speaking to the group Alliance Defending Freedom. There’s certainly nothing remarkable about a high-ranking public official who is a prominent lawyer speaking to another group of attorneys. The Attorney General is a political and social conservative and Alliance Defending Freedom is a well-known defender of traditional moral values when it comes to life, marriage and religious liberty. So it’s hard to see anything newsworthy about such a commonplace event. And, in fact, the speech itself was nothing extraordinary. It was a well-balanced defense of the role of religion in our society and the importance of religious liberty.

But nothing is so simple in our modern age. Several major news outlets covered this story before the text of the speech was released, and prominently repeated a despicable slander against ADF propagated by an advocacy organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is a self-appointed watchdog over “hate groups” around the country. There certainly are many hate groups around the country who are dedicated to violent action motivated by bias, and it’s a good thing that someone is keeping an eye on them. In reality though, the SPLC is not a neutral agency like the FBI, but is instead a partisan advocacy organization for socially progressive causes, especially so-called gay rights, and a prodigious fund-raiser based on that advocacy.

Because ADF has the temerity to disagree with SPLC on those issues, the SPLC has designated them a “hate group”, and the media has now compliantly parroted the calumny. All that you need to do to qualify as a so-called “hate group” in the eyes of the SPLC is to disagree with them about issues like the effects of sexual hedonism on society, or the morality of homosexual conduct, same-sex “marriage”, and “transgender” rights. In other words, if you’re not with the progressive program you are a “hater”.

Now the SPLC can call people any name they like, since it is still a free country. But what’s really outrageous is that so-called reputable news organizations uncritically repeat the outrageous calumnies of the SPLC as if they were credible and objective, rather than the ideological name-calling that they really are.

We really shouldn’t be too surprised at this though. The Supreme Court in its decisions about homosexuality has been slandering people for years who have the nerve to hold to traditional moral values on sexuality. In 1996, the Court said that the only conceivable reason for a law passed by referendum that excluded sexual orientation from civil rights laws was “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group” — in other words, pure malice. In 2013, the Court upped the ante when it struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and said that the virtually unanimous Congress and the Democratic president who signed the law we’re motivated by a “bare . . . desire to harm”, “disparage and injure”, “demean”, and “impose a stigma” on homosexual people. Justice Scalia rightly dissented from that decision and accused the court of declaring anyone opposed to same-sex “marriage” an enemy of the human race. Finally, in 2015 when the Supreme Court invented a right to same-sex “marriage”, the Court again accused those of us who believe in authentic marriage as being motivated by a desire to “demean or stigmatize” homosexuals, and even to “disparage their choices and diminish their personhood”.

When the highest court in the land says such things, then the message goes out that anyone who disagrees with the progressive agenda is irrational and bigoted, with no legitimate motivations and no opinions worthy of respect. That gives the SPLC and their allies in the media carte blanche to slander groups like ADF as “haters”. Others have barely avoided the term “hate” by using other words of disapprobation, such as “odious”, “bigoted”, “unkind”, “hurtful”, “intolerant”, and “needlessly cruel”. But the message is the same.

What the Supreme Court, the SPLC, and the media have not — yet — come out to say, however, is that what they are describing as “hate” is normal, mainstream, traditional, historical, Christian belief. By the way, that includes the beliefs contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which have been held and taught by the Church since its founding.

Make no mistake about it. The supposedly “hateful” position that traditional orthodox Christians are accused of holding is the firm conviction based in Revelation, science, reason and tradition that maleness and femaleness are not accidental or arbitrary, that they have a meaning and a purpose oriented to unity of man and woman in marriage and the procreation of children, that homosexual desires and homogenital activity are incompatible with that meaning and purpose, and that a person can live a healthy and fulfilling life without acting on all of their sexual desires.

That’s not hate, that’s truth embedded deep into human nature, and it cannot be changed no matter what courts or advocacy groups say. And it doesn’t mean hating anyone – those of us who hold those beliefs still love our relatives, friends and neighbors who disagree with us.

Let me get back to ADF. I am very familiar with their work. I have been to their legal Academies, I have collaborated with their attorneys, and I have friends who are closely associated with them. I admire many of those in leadership positions there. I have found that they are an altruistic, heroic group of committed Christians who have sacrificed much to defend life, marriage, and religious liberty. They have done nothing to deserve the calumnies of the SPLC and the media. In fact they have done much to deserve the applause and support of all Americans who cherish traditional morality and decency, and the freedom to live by those values — and of those who disagree with them but defend their rights to free expression. Maybe the reason that groups like SPLC dislike ADF so much is that they’re so successful – they’ve won a number of key victories in court, including major cases in the Supreme Court.

Even in an era of debased public conversation, accusing people of “hatred” is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, and indicates that you’ve lost the argument or that you don’t have enough confidence in your position to defend it. If you disagree with our positions on life, marriage and religious freedom, oppose us openly in the public square, legislatures and the courts. Don’t hide behind schoolyard insults.

Last week, I attended the “Convocation of Catholic Leaders: The Joy of the Gospel in America”. This was an important moment in the history of the Church in America. This huge gathering in Orlando of Catholics from around the nation was attended by over 3,000 people, including over a hundred bishops and many priests, deacons and religious. It was years in the making and was a major accomplishment for the staff of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference.

I have to admit that I approached the event with considerably less than enthusiasm. I don’t like conferences — I am not a networker and I am an introvert who finds crowds uncomfortable and exhausting. I have also attended too many church events that were disappointing.

But this Convocation vastly exceeded my expectations. It was extremely well organized, the liturgies were beautiful (especially the music, which was exquisite), and it had a strong unifying theme that was very practical. In fact, I found the event to be virtually a mini-retreat, and I was very uplifted and actually experienced spiritual healing of some long-standing wounds.

The event was organized around the themes presented by the Holy Father in the document The Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium). Boiled down to an “elevator pitch”, it was all about how we can share the Gospel with people in our modern world, especially those who are excluded and marginalized (who are in what the Pope calls “the peripheries”) so they can experience the saving and healing joy that comes from a personal loving relationship with Jesus Christ. To do this, we have to make sure that we have that kind of relationship, and we have to overcome the barriers in our own lives to sharing it with others and the stumbling blocks that that prevent them from accepting it. One of the primary ways that we are called to do this is by living a life of mercy and love, encountering and accompanying people in the difficulties of their lives.

The decision to use The Joy of the Gospel as the heart of the Convocation was inspired. This document was unjustly ignored in America because, I believe, the Holy Father had the audacity to express doubts about the justice of the world’s economic system. This is due to the extent of the materialism and consumerism that has infected American society, and the almost religious fervor that people have when it comes to “capitalism”.

In fact, the document is a beautiful call to experience the Gospel. As the Holy Father says up front,

The joy of the gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus. Those who accept his offer of salvation are set free from sin, sorrow, inner emptiness and loneliness. With Christ joy is constantly born anew. In this Exhortation I wish to encourage the Christian faithful to embark upon a new chapter of evangelization marked by this joy, while pointing out new paths for the Church’s journey in years to come.

This “new chapter” has to begin with a revived relationship with Jesus. The Holy Father goes on to say:

I invite all Christians, everywhere, at this very moment, to a renewed personal encounter with Jesus Christ, or at least an openness to letting him encounter them; I ask all of you to do this unfailingly each day. No one should think that this invitation is not meant for him or her, since “no one is excluded from the joy brought by the Lord”.

The Holy Father clearly identifies many obstacles to experiencing and sharing the Gospel, particularly a sense of complacency and self-orientation. He is particularly pointed in challenging pastoral workers not to fall into the temptations he calls “spiritual sloth”, “sterile pessimism, “spiritual worldliness”, all of which deaden our souls and dampen the desire to bring the Gospel to others.

The Convocation was designed to blast us out of those dead-end attitudes, and, judging by what I felt and saw, it was a success. Coming out of it, I think the participants were renewed in our confidence in the Gospel and eager to bring it to the peripheries of our troubled world.

At the end of June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a lawsuit that challenged the Administration’s so-called “travel ban”. The Supreme Court decision would permit the Administration to impose its ban on refugees from any nation in the world for 120 days, once the quota of 50,000 refugees has been met. Since that absurdly low number is expected to be met next week, the effect is to permit a refugee ban for the rest of this year.

However, the Court provided that refugees from six Muslim-majority countries can be admitted if they can prove a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Administration has interpreted this narrowly, to mean that people with “close family” in the U.S. — such as a parent, spouse, fiance or fiancee, child or sibling — would qualify. But it does not include others, including grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and cousins. And it fails to take into account the reality of persecution suffered by thousands who don’t have any family ties to the US.

This leaves thousands of refugees trapped in dangerous and unhealthy camps or in hiding from violence and persecution. 65 million people are currently displaced by war and persecution around the world, according to the UN. Our attention has mostly been directed to the Middle East, but there are refugees from all over the world, including those fleeing the civil war and famine in South Sudan and people escaping the growing tyranny and economic collapse in Venezuela.

The terrible irony is that, even though the President originally said he wanted to help Christians facing persecution and to keep out radical Islamists, the ban will likely exclude far more Christians than Muslims. According to the State Department, 48 percent of the refugees admitted to the US in the first half of this year were Christian, while 41 percent were Muslim.

The injustice to Christians fleeing persecution was made even more evident by the bizarre decision by immigration officials to target Chaldean Christians in Michigan for a deportation campaign. Some of these people were legitimately subject to potential deportation because of prior criminal convictions. But the result of this campaign is not only to separate families, but to send these people back to northern Iraq — a current hot war zone that has been the site of genocide against Christians. It’s hard to fault them for feeling betrayed by a President who once tweeted “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”

This Administration is not exactly famous for consistency and rationality of its policies, and chaos seems to be the order of the day. Just today, it was revealed that the head of the ICS deportation unit has ordered his officers to detain all undocumented immigrants they encounter, even if they don’t have a criminal history — in direct contradiction of the Administration’s publicly stated priorities. Considering that the Administration hasn’t even nominated a new head of ICS or the policy office of Homeland Security, the disarray is not too surprising.

But the injustice of this Administration’s policies on refugees is both surprising and tragic. While I can appreciate differing positions on the appropriate numbers of immigrants to welcome to the United States, it is hard to fathom the Administration’s hard-heartedness towards refugees.

[I had the honor of being invited to address the graduates of The Montfort Academy. This high school is a gem — a truly, entusiastically and unapologetically Catholic school that focuses on classical learning and guiding the personal and spiritual growth of their students. May God bless those grads and the faculty and staff of Montfort. This is the text of my address.]

I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Montfort Academy for inviting me to speak to the graduating class today. It is an honor to be able to participate in this great enterprise of Catholic education.

We all know that high school graduation is a significant milestone in our lives. No matter how old we are, we probably remember our own graduation very clearly. We tend to look at it as the dawn of adulthood and our entry into the world at large. I hope and trust that your school and family have been safe and nurturing environments, in which you were respected and valued. Unfortunately, I have to tell something that you probably know already — you are stepping into a world that is not like that at all.

Welcome to the arena. I use the word “arena” very deliberately. It has particular significance to us Christians, calling to mind the early martyrs and confessors, heroes in the face of the hostility of the world. They were people of great courage and virtue. I also use the word “virtue” deliberately, because I know that your classical education has been deeply immersed in the development of virtue. So you have an excellent foundation for the challenges that lie ahead.

That’s good, because the arena is a tough place. Our modern world is very hostile to the message of the Gospel and to those who bring it. We see it every day in the news. Threats to religious liberties by our government; open hatred and contempt towards our faith and our Church in the media, and probably in most of the universities that you will be attending; threats to human life at the beginning, end and every point in between; attacks on the very meaning of what it is to be a man and a woman; and when we look beyond our borders, bloody persecutions in other lands. Powerful forces in our culture want people of faith to sit down, shut up, and leave their faith at home in private. And they are using the force of law and social pressure to make sure that we either conform to their views or we pay the price.

We have to be clear, though, that our battle is not just with the forces of the world — governments, media, entertainment, etc. It is a spiritual struggle as well. In fact, this is the most serious and difficult part of being in the arena. As St. Paul said, “our struggle is not with flesh and blood but… with the evil spirits in the heavens.” (Ephesians 6:12) We cannot opt out of this spiritual battle. And we are called to choose whose banner we will follow – God’s or His Enemy’s.

Make no mistake, once you step into the arena, you’ll will feel it in your heart and soul – because that’s where the real battle is taking place. I recall once being in the State Capitol, going to a meeting with a high-ranking and hostile legislator about an abortion bill. I could feel the sense of opposition as I went to the meeting, as if I was walking into a strong headwind or swimming upstream. Just the other day, a colleague and I were at a conference run by assisted suicide advocates, and we could feel the evil in the room. In times like these we really need to listen to St. Paul’s advice, and draw our strength from the Lord and from his mighty power, and put on the armor of God so that we can stand firm against the Evil One (see Ephesians 6:10-11).

In the face of all these challenges, the worst mistake we could make would be to huddle together in small communities with only people who think like ourselves, and hope that someday somhow things will get better in the outside world. No. That’s a response of despair and defeat. Too much is at stake to do that.

We are called to build the kind of society that God wants us to live in. And so we need to arm ourselves with certain virtues that I’d like to talk about.

To illustrate this, I’ll call on the example of two of my favorite people from history – George Washington and Joan of Arc. Two soldiers who fought for great causes against overwhelming odds in a hostile world. They have a lot to teach us about how to fight our fight.

First and foremost, they had the virtue of trust in God.

I think of George Washington on Christmas Eve 1776. His army had suffered a series of defeats by the most powerful army in the world. He faced the likelihood of his army melting away. It would have been easy to think that defeat was inevitable. But Washington had absolute confidence that God supported what he called “the Glorious Cause”. As he put it once in a letter, “as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim at”. With that attitude, he trusted in Providence and went on the attack, turning the tide of the war at the Battle of Trenton, and saving the cause of independence.

Think also of Joan of Arc in 1429. Her homeland was torn and devastated by civil war and foreign invasion. She had been receiving private revelations for years from St. Michael, St. Catherine and St. Margaret. They had assured her that God had a special plan for her, and she believed them. But it was an astounding plan – God wanted this illiterate peasant girl, perhaps 17 years old, with no military experience at all, to lead the French Army to victory and make sure that the king was crowned and anointed with sacred oil. If ever there was something to scoff at, that was it. Imagine if one of you ladies went to the Pentagon and said that God had sent you to win our wars. But Joan never doubted, she trusted God. She pursued her mission with passion and tenacity, overcoming all skeptics and opponents and obstacles. She achieved a remarkable series of victories in battle, and she stood beside the king as he was crowned and anointed, just as God had promised.

We need trust in God in our struggles today. Don’t ever forget that God has a specific design and plan for each one of you. He has a design and plan for our nation. God cares what we do, how we live, what our laws are, how we are governed. Discerning His plan is difficult, but when we understand what it is, we must hold firm to it and place our trust in Him.

The second virtue is a purity of heart. By this, I don’t mean the theological virtue of detachment from sin (which we all need). I mean a kind of selflessness and humility that puts other people and the cause ahead of our own self-interest.

Whenever Washington was asked to assume a new office he spoke of his sense of unworthiness, and his fear of disappointing those who were entrusting him with his duties. At the end of the Revolutionary War, and again at the end of his second presidential term, Washington didn’t seize ultimate power, as many victorious military leaders have done. Instead, he put the nation above himself, and he gladly returned to private life. When hearing that Washington might retire voluntarily, King George said that “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world!” But so he did, and so he was.

Joan, too, was a great example of this virtue. Having come from poverty, she never asked for riches or titles or honors. Her greatest wish was to complete her mission and then return home to her parents. Surrounded by ambitious and conniving courtiers, she stood out for her simplicity and lack of egotism. Serving God was the entire purpose of her mission and her life, not personal glory. As a sign of this, she wore only one piece of jewelry, a simple gold ring, a gift from her mother, with the plain engraving of the names of Jesus and Mary. That was enough honor for her. At the trial that led to her unjust execution, Joan offered a statement that sums up her purity of heart: “I came from God. There is nothing more for me to do here! Send me back to God, from Whom I came!”

Purity of heart is essential for our leaders and for the success of our cause.
But it is in short supply. Think of the public figures who revel in their celebrity status or constantly resort to bragging or self-advancement. That erodes trust and breeds suspicion and cynicism. It also encourages division in our ranks. We need purity of heart to stay strong and united. As the Bible says, One person standing alone can be overcome, two together can resist, but a cord of three strands is hard to break. (Ecc 4:12)

The final virtue is boldness. This is a form of courage, but it’s more than that. It’s a sense of freedom and honesty, being able to act on one’s deepest beliefs, unrestrained by fear or self-consciousness, certain of the truth and justice and inevitable triumph of one’s cause.

Washington repeatedly showed boldness in battle, both in his personal conduct and in his strategy. Several times he exposed himself to enemy fire in order to rally his soldiers. On that Christmas Eve in 1776 when all hope seemed lost, he led his men on an impossible venture – crossing a frozen river and marching through a blizzard to surprise and defeat the enemy at Trenton. A bold stroke, and a decisive one.

Joan’s boldness was legendary. She took a defeated, disheartened and demoralized French army and galvanized it into action. She rejected counsels of caution and attacked the enemy directly and decisively. She led her troops from the front of every battle, with her standard in her hand. When things were going badly she refused to retreat, but rallied the troops and attacked again. When asked if she was afraid, she said: “I fear nothing for God is with me!” Old hardened soldiers, with years of battle experience, willingly followed this young girl – they followed her up the battlements and they would have followed her anywhere. So would I.

Every generation faces its own battles. Washington and Joan fought for freedom and justice for their nations, against steep odds. The battle we face is similar, and just as daunting. We are in a struggle to define our culture and our nation, to determine what kind of people we are, and how we are going to live together. We defend human life at every stage against what the Holy Father calls a “throwaway culture” that would just get rid of inconvenient lives. We stand for authentic masculinity and femininity, and the truth about human love and sexuality. We stand up and fight for poor, powerless, sick and suffering people in a culture that would rather avert its gaze and ignore them. We speak the truth of God’s will in a culture that rejects the very idea of truth.

Pope Francis once said: “Even today the message of the Church is the message of the path of boldness, the path of Christian courage… [and] the path of Christian courage is a grace given by the Holy Spirit.” So when we step out into the arena, we are not alone. We stand with the Holy Spirit, with Our Blessed Mother, our guardian angels, the heavenly hosts and the communion of saints. With them, we can truly say with the Psalm, “The LORD is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts” (Psalm 28:7). We can also hold on to the words of Jesus: “In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” (Jn 16:33)

This is a difficult time. But this is a time for trust in God. This is a time for purity of heart. This is a time for boldness. This is a time for heroes. This is a time for you.

The United States Senate is currently struggling to draft a health care bill to replace the Affordable Care Act. The House previously passed a bill, but the Senate has essentially gone back to the drawing board and is trying to develop their own unique bill. Both in its politics and policy details, the process of doing so is mind-numbingly complex and difficult, and the results will have a tremendous effect on the lives of all Americans.

But the moral aspects of this kind of legislation are equally momentous in their importance. All legislation involves moral decisions about what to permit or prohibit, what to promote or discourage, what to spend money on and what to defund. Legislation like a health care bill is particularly fraught with moral dimensions that no “scoring” from the Congressional Budget Office can measure.

This is where our legislators need to listen to the advice of our Bishops, who have been examining this health care reform process for decades, and who have essential moral guidance to offer. In a letter sent to the Senate on June 1, the bishops who chair four major USCCB committees (including Cardinal Dolan, the Pro-Life chair) offered a clear moral template for any health care bill. As always, the bishops expressed their concern for how legislation would affect the most vulnerable people, including low-income people, immigrants, and the unborn. But the principles they laid out are even broader:

No Affordable Care Act repeal effort should be undertaken without the concurrent passage of a replacement plan that ensures access to adequate health care for all.

Respect for life: No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Long-standing “Hyde Amendment” protections must extend to any relevant health care plan in order to prevent federal funding of abortion and not as a temporary fix or future promise. Federal resources must not be used to assist consumers in the purchase of health care plans that cover abortion.

Access for all: Reform efforts must begin with the principle that health care is not a privilege, but a right in keeping with the life and dignity of every person. All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care…

Truly affordable: Many lower-income families simply lack the resources to meet their health care expenses. The Bishops have serious concerns about structural changes to Medicaid that would leave large numbers of people without the coverage they now rely upon, including those who gained access to care as part of the Medicaid expansion that came with the ACA. Reform also ought to address barriers to affordability for those living above the poverty level but who are still working hard to make ends meet.

Comprehensive and high-quality: Health care is much more than mere insurance. Other aspects of health care policy require the attention of policy-makers: … focus on the maintenance and promotion of good health as well as treat disease and disability for all people, regardless of means; Incentives for preventative care, early intervention and maintaining a reasonable choice of providers… encourage individuals to develop a sense of ownership over decisions that affect their health and well-being; encourage people to enter medical professions, and which foster more humane andresponsive relationships between doctors and patients…

Honoring conscience rights: Congress should expressly provide conscience protections for those who participate in any way in health care. Such protections should extend to all stakeholders, including patients, insurers, purchasers, sponsors, and providers.

Crafting complex legislation is not a pretty process, and inevitably involves many political compromises and imperfect solutions. But health care is too important a human right to be left entirely to amoral market forces, or to the often-immoral intrusiveness of government regulations. Either approach values ideology over people, and endangers lives of vulnerable people. One need only think of the massive funding and support provided to the abortion industry, regulations that violate religious freedom and seek to coerce cooperation in immorality, or the heartless attitude of insurance companies that will pay for suicide drugs but not for chemotherapy.

Congress has a difficult task in front of it. But our bishops have given much-needed guidance, and we should urge our legislators to heed it. The common good of our society, and social justice for all, is too important to leave to a debate that focuses only on political and economic concerns, and not on morality.

On May 30, the New York State Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case of Myers v. Schneiderman, which is seeking to legalize assisted suicide in New York. The case was previously rejected unanimously by the trial court and the Appellate Division. Our pro-life coalition, along with disabilities-rights groups, have been opposing this effort, and the Catholic Conference filed an amicus brief in both the lower court and at the Court of Appeals.

It was a lively oral argument. The Judges were definitely engaged in the issues and asked tough questions of both sides. We were very fortunate that the Deputy Solicitor General did an excellent job representing our side. The essence of her argument was that the lower courts correctly dismissed the case because the Legislature has already enacted a “bright line prohibition” against assisted suicide and the Court should leave it to the Legislature to make any changes in that rule. One of the Judges affirmed that, noting that no other state (with the ambiguous exception of Montana) had legalized assisted suicide by court decision, but instead had enacted extensive legislation.

The Judges showed little interest in defining a broad constitutional right to assisted suicide or in sending the case back down to the trial court for a fact-finding hearing. Several Judges also stated that they had read a brief submitted by a disabilities-rights organization which stressed that legalizing assisted suicide sends a message that their lives are less worthy of respect. And one judge clearly recognized that once you permit assisted suicide for some patients, it is difficult to deny it to others.

On the whole, though, I’m still pessimistic. There was no reason for the Court to take this case, except to reverse the lower courts. One Judge pressed the Solicitor General repeatedly over the state’s interest in protecting life at the last extremity, when it already allows patients to be sedated into a state of unconsciousness and to then die of starvation or dehydration. This suggested strongly that the Judge was trying to figure out a way to define a statutory right to assisted suicide in a way that has a reasonably-definable limit. But that’s a bad thing for them to be even considering — again, whether or not to draw lines, and where you put them, is for the Legislature to decide, not the courts.

None of the judges pressed the plaintiff’s attorney to explain why the lower court judges were unanimously wrong or why the right to decline medical treatment includes having a third party (i.e., the doctor) give them a drug that will directly kill them. They also did not seem to grasp the fundamental difference between declining treatment and committing suicide — the crucial difference is in the intention and causation between those acts. Other state interests, such as the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession and the potential negative effect on other anti-suicide activities, were not addressed in the arguments (although they were extensively discussed in the briefs, including ours).

It is so hard to read oral arguments, especially when one judge said nothing and another very little. A decision is expected in June. I fear that the most likely result is that the Court will create some kind of statutory right to assisted suicide for patients who are at the very end of life and would otherwise be eligible for palliative/terminal sedation, and then either leave it to the Legislature to enact procedural protections (or, even worse, leave it to doctors to self-regulate). Of course, there’s no way to hold that limit, or to trust the Legislature to do it right, and we’ll inevitably slide right down the slippery slope to euthanasia along with Canada, Belgium and Holland. The Culture of Death has quite a grip on New York already, and things will only get worse.

One last point. It’s easy to be cynical about the law and about judges. I certainly am. The law is an extension of politics, it serves the powerful better than the weak, and it is easily manipulated for special interests. Judges often consider themselves to be our Black-Robed Platonic Guardian Rulers and arrogate to themselves authority that should belong to the people.

But to sit in that magnificent courtroom, listening to a very high level of legal argumentation on such a momentous issue, with the portraits of so many Judges looking down at us, with the portrait of the Founding Father John Jay in the center facing the bronze statute of Chancellor Robert Livingston and Judge Benjamin Cardozo looking on from the side, is an extraordinary reminder of something very important. The law and the judicial system, for all their faults, demonstrate the remarkable human capacity for reason and self-government. The administration of law is awe-inspiring and fearsome, and there’s still quite a bit of nobility in it. Whichever way the Court rules, we should not forget that.

May 30th is the anniversary of the martyrdom of my favorite saint — she called herself Jeanne the Maid (“Jehanne la Pucelle”), but we know her better as Joan of Arc. She was a beautiful person, simple, humble, devout and strong. She rose from total obscurity in the backwater farm country of France, and accomplished one of the most remarkable feats in human history. Hers is such an amazing story that it sounds like fiction — an ignorant seventeen-year-old girl, with no military experience whatsoever, leading the army of a defeated and demoralized nation to impossible victories, restoring the true king to the throne, only to end in tragedy.

But her military accomplishments aren’t the most important thing about her, even though they remain astonishing and unmatched in history. Her entire mission was not intended to glorify herself, but was carried out in humble obedience to the will of God, communicated to her through visions of Sts. Michael, Catherine, and Margaret. She never wanted anything more than to return to her home, yet she obeyed God and set aside her own desires, in order to bring peace and justice to her homeland.

The price she paid for this devotion was appalling. After all her triumphs, she was betrayed by the same king whom she raised to the throne, abandoned by her comrades in arms, persecuted by hard-hearted enemies, tortured and condemned by corrupt Churchmen, and cruelly put to death in one of the most painful ways imaginable.

Jeanne’s beauty of soul and her sterling faith shone through it all, even in battle and even in the darkest days of her cruelly unfair trial. Here is what she said at the trial, when asked about who carried her standard (i.e., her flag): “It was I who carried the aforementioned sign when I charged the enemy. I did so to avoid killing any one. I have never killed a man.” She wept over the loss of life in battle, strove to minimize it, insisted on sparing prisoners, and comforted dying enemy soldiers. At her trial, Joan offered a statement that sums up her character, and could have been her battle cry: “I came from God. There is nothing more for me to do here! Send me back to God, from Whom I came!”

Jeanne rejected worldly honors, and refused to accept titles for herself. Serving God was the entire purpose of her mission and her life, not personal glory. As a sign of this, she wore only one piece of jewelry, a simple gold ring, a gift from her mother, with the plain engraving “+Jhesus+Maria+”. I wear a similar ring every day in her honor. As she was suffering at the stake, she had a cross before her eyes and she died with the name of Jesus on her lips. Those who witnessed her death finally understood that they had condemned a saint.

She is, in my opinion, the most outstanding example of a brave and Christian warrior, whose love of God inspired all that she did, whose nobility of character inspired deep love and devotion among the hardened soldiers who followed her, and whose courage under persecution is a shining beacon of purity and virtue. Her life continues to inspire biographers to this day, and even the cynical Mark Twain, who wrote a beautiful novelization of her life, considered her to be the most remarkable person who ever lived.

Back in 2011, Pope Benedict presented a series of reflections on the great female saints, at his regular Wednesday address. One of those he spoke about was Jeanne, and he said this: “Her holiness is a beautiful example for lay people engaged in politics, especially in the most difficult situations. Faith is the light that guides every decision”.

She is a saint for the ages, and she is particularly important for this age. The Church and people of faith need holy warriors now more than ever, people who are willing to stand for the truth, for God’s will, and for the welfare of their homeland. I pray to Jeanne every day, and in times of trial I feel the strength of Jeanne’s patronage. If I ever make it to heaven, she will be one of the first saints I seek out and thank for her help.

So the Sexual Revolution is now almost sixty years old, if we date it from the first approval of oral hormonal contraceptives here in the United States. How’s that working out?

A handful of news stories over the last week provide a good look at how things have played out, and the results are pretty bad — for individuals, families and society as a whole.

The New York Times, always the bellwether of the latest cultural swamp’s thinking, tries once again to promote the wonders of an “open marriage”. Interestingly, one of the partners in this immoral tryst hasn’t told his wife about it – but there’s no apparent concern by any of the trio about how she might feel about his betrayal.

Some tech guys in California have invented a “sex robot”, so nobody has to actually have a human relationship in order to experience pleasure. It’s hard to tell which is creepier – the concept or the robots themselves.

Self-absorbed people have decided that the cool thing is to become a “sologamist” – meaning that they’re marrying themselves. This is just about a perfect snapshot of our narcissistic culture. Who needs another human being when it’s all about me?

Yet another study shows that chronic porn use leads to chronic sexual dysfunction in men. What a shock. Objectifying women, treating them as objects for personal use, and separating sex from actual human relationships – what could possibly go wrong?

A new poll shows that Americans hold increasingly liberal opinions about all kinds of sexual behavior. Again, no surprises, since original sin and personal sins lead us into all sorts of blindness.

These stories don’t appear in a vacuum. Statistics show a grim picture of current family life: only 50% of American adults are currently married, an all-time low; only 69% of American children live in families headed by two parents while 23% live in single-mother households; and 40% of births are to unwed mothers. The results of this are equally grim: 36.5% of single-mother families and 22% of single-father families live in poverty, compared to only 7.5% of married families; the life-time risk of divorce is now between 42% and 45%; the risk of social problems (crime, substance abuse, educational failure, physical and sexual abuse) are all much higher for children in non-marital households. So how’s that Sexual Revolution working out?

I know it’s antediluvian to do so, but maybe it would be a good idea to look back to the predictions made by Pope Paul VI in his prescient encyclical Humanae Vitae. Here is what he warned about if contraceptive use and mentality were to become prevalent:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.

Yes, yes, and yes. The Holy Father has been proven correct, in abundance. Millions of children lost to abortion and contraception. Suffering of men and women post-abortion. Collapse of a supportive marriage culture. Separation of sex from procreation and from marriage. Broken hearts from the hook-up culture. Widespread acceptance of objectively immoral behavior. Massive increase in divorce and single parenthood. Epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases. Rampant abuse and objectification of women. Torrents of pornography, particularly with disgusting and degrading violence towards women and children. Evil government policies of forced contraception and sterilization, limits on family size, and coerced abortions. Ideological colonialism by rich countries that tie desperately needed foreign aid to “population control” plans and propaganda campaigns.

Can anyone not blinded by ideology or captive to libertinism reasonably say that the Sexual Revolution has led to an overall increase in human welfare and happiness? The tragedy is that the antidote to this social and personal catastrophe is right in front of us – the truth of human sexuality and human love that is proclaimed by the Catholic Church, namely, that sexuality is a great gift that is ordered to the life-long unity and well-being of man and woman and the procreation and rearing of children. In other words, the solution is precisely what our hedonistic and self-destructive culture derides and holds in contempt.

When the road is leading to ruin, it’s madness to keep going straight and press the accelerator down harder. The only thing to do is change course, get back on the right road, and heal the wounds of those who were damaged by this tragically failed revolution.